and many more benefits!

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Events & Promotions

Christina scored 760 by having clear (ability) milestones and a trackable plan to achieve the same. Attend this webinar to learn how to build trackable milestones that leverage your strengths to help you get to your target GMAT score.

Right now, their GMAT prep, GRE prep, and MBA admissions consulting services are up to $1,100 off. GMAT (Save up to $261): SPRINGEXTRAGMAT GRE Prep (Save up to $149): SPRINGEXTRAGRE MBA (Save up to $1,240): SPRINGEXTRAMBA

Hide Tags

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who
[#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Feb 2019, 00:34

1

2

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

36%(02:19) correct 64%(02:34) wrong based on 96 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who
[#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Mar 2019, 06:07

eabhgoy wrote:

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

I picked D but indeed A is the logical answer.D strengthens Roger's point. No law is forcing parents to get kids into private school ->no law should force parents of kids going to public school to pay twice.A is correct. the logic is dumb but it follows both Roger's counter logic and Gloria's beginning reasoning (water = education =necessary).

Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who
[#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Mar 2019, 07:21

eabhgoy wrote:

Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents whose children attend private schools maintain that people making no use of a government service should not be forced to pay for it. Yet those who choose to buy bottled water rather than drink water from the local supply are not therefore exempt from paying taxes to maintain the local water supply.

Roger: Your argument is illogical. Children are required by law to attend school. Since school attendance is a matter not of choice, but of legal requirement, it is unfair for the government to force some parents to pay for it twice.

Which of the following responses by Gloria would best refute Roger’s charge that her argument is illogical?

(A) Although drinking water is not required by law, it is necessary for all people, and therefore my analogy is appropriate.(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.(C) If tuition tax credits are granted, the tax burden on parents who choose public schools will rise to an intolerable level.(D) The law does not say that parents must send their children to private schools, only that the children must attend some kind of school, whether public or private.(E) Both bottled water and private schools are luxury items, and it is unfair that some citizens should be able to afford them while others cannot.

Re: Gloria: Those who advocate tuition tax credits for parents who
[#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Mar 2019, 00:42

(B) Those who can afford the tuition at a high-priced private school can well bear the same tax burden as those whose children attend public schools.

it's irrelevant to the point that we need to make here. those whose kids go to private school are already paying the same amount as those whose kids go to public school. this is a sort of restatement of what Gloria said rather than a reply.